Harris would be stupid to alienate Jewish voters going into the election.
On what evidence do you believe this. All the evidence provided thus far shows the opposite to be the case. The overwhelming majority of Democrats want to end arms sales to Israel. By what twisted mathematics does gaining a majority of supporters risk losing the vote?
The evidence in question, to save trawling through posts
I don't agree that the Dems need to change policy to win. Sure they could pick up some votes from the left but would sacrifice votes from other areas to achieve that.
What makes you think that, given the evidence to the contrary?
At the end of the day, those protesting will need to decide, Trump or not Trump.
Again, why are thousand of voters responsible for keeping Trump out, but not the Democrats?
Or, a slightly different question, why do you pin your hopes on these thousands and not on the Democrats? Do you think they're more likely to change their minds? Do you think people are actually going to vote in favour of a party committed to facilitating genocide, often of their distant relations, than the Democrats are to change policy.
Don't you think that's an absolutely devastating indictment of democracy? That no amount of voting block pressure can actually get a party to change policy.
work from the inside on changing policy.
I don't understand what this means. Voters vote. They don't control party policy "from the inside", they just vote on stuff.
If they don't, and they help Trump get elected, things will be infinitely worse for the Palestinians.
And again, blaming the electorate for being moral, not blaming the Democrats for refusing to listen.
The clarity of your plan was not in question.
I asked a very simple question about that plan. Why do you think you can change the minds of all these people who currently are not going to vote, but you don't think you can change the minds of the Democrat strategists?
You seem to be implying that getting Democrats to actually change policy to help them win is a lost cause, but then have this tremendous optimism toward changing the minds of thousands of people, many of whom are withholding their vote in protest against genocide. I asked why.
I did not ask "could you repeat your plan". This is a discussion forum, it should have been obvious you might expect some scrunity of an argument put forth on it. If your intention is to ignore "naysayers" then might I suggest a discussion forum is not the best place for you to be posting. Maybe a blog, or Substack?
It's a damn good assumption as I also could shit out a few dozen links after one Google search, too.
It's not, though. That's the point. Finding sources to back an unpopular opinion is, by definition, trawling through Google to find them. If you disallow that, you disallow unpopular opinion. Epistemological integrity does not simply oblige us to believe whatever view had the most sources, it's not dishonest to have a gut feeling about something and check that it is reasonable, based on finding supporting evidence. It's the mainstay of all academic essaying, for example. It's normal to check one's opinion is reasonable, we don't all arrive at an issue with blank slates to fill and if you think you do, you're lying to yourself.
Epistemic responsibility is about changing that initial view if it is overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, it's not about updating it according to some popularity contest. Truth is not decided by vote.
So searching through Google to find sources supporting your view is perfectly reasonable so long as the sources found are valid and reputable. That indicates it is reasonable to continue to hold your view. It doesn't matter if a greater number of equally reputable sources present the opposing view because truth is not determined by popular vote.
If he does "do his research" and happens to have a list of links at the ready, that is just weird or it's someone with a motive other than showing how smart they are
So damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
You're familiar, I assume, with the self-immunised argument?
dissent with bad information is just poor form
It is. Unless the dissent is over whether the information is 'bad', in which case evidence must be brought to bear to support arguments to the contrary. No doubt this poster would not simply agree their information was 'bad', so that is the point over which you disagree. Again, assuming it's bad when that's the very point of disagreement is begging the question.
"despite increasingly popular opinion" is supposed to convince me of something based on the rumored opinions of what?
I was merely commenting on the increasingly popular move of repeating things back in alternating capitals aS iF tHaT pRoVeD aNyThInG At All.
Addendum:
Basically, some people's initial view on some matter will coincide with that of the mainstream. They're lucky. The evidence supporting their view will be plastered over every newspaper and government announcement. They won't have to do any digging to support it since quality newspapers are (generally) reputable sources.
Others, however, will form a contrary initial opinion. They are not so lucky since, by definition, sources supporting their view will be less well disseminated. They will have to actively search.
Doublely unlucky if that view happens to oppose US policy because the US's many enemies will also be seeking out such evidence to use in their propaganda.
Triplely unlucky these days because conspiracy theorists and online cultists are also looking for dissenting evidence to add credence to whatever bullshit they're spouting.
But a healthy democracy requires that neither of these issues is used to simply smear all dissenting opinion. Otherwise we just have a monolith.
Dissent is not spouting off Russian propaganda verbatim
Why not? If Russia finds information which is opposed to the US/NATO position they will use it in their propaganda. It follows that anyone dissenting from the US/NATO position may also use the same information.
Something being part of foreign propaganda doesn't mean it's false. Propaganda isn't just lying. If the US had done something wrong, you can guarantee Russia would use it in their propaganda. They don't just lie about everything. They lie about things they want to hide, but if the truth helps their cause they'll tell it. It follows from this that some Russian propaganda is likely to be true (unless you want to make the case that the US never does anything wrong, or successfully hides it from Russia in all cases).
Dissent is also not searching for every internet based opinion piece with a flashy headline that aligns with a specific view.
That's true it isn't. But you've no evidence at all that this is what's happening here other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one.
If you simply assume all evidence for dissenting opinion must have been derived this way purely on the grounds that the view it supports is not a mainstream one, then you have a self-immumised argument. The antithesis of rational thought.
It is a structural necessity of dissenting opinion that it be based on fewer sources. If you deny the ability to present sources simply on the grounds that they are select, then you deny dissent, because dissent, by necessity, will be based on select sources. Opinion based on majority sources is, by definition, majority opinion (among a rational community).
Dissent is actually showing, to the best of ones abilities, real cause for action.
No, it isn't. Because whether a cause is a 'real' cause is the matter over which there is disagreement, so it is begging the question to only allow those causes you consider 'real' into a discussion about which causes are 'real'. You preemptively clear the field of all dissenting opinion before the debate even begins.
To properly use these articles, you have to dig. You need to understand the authors, the sources and the motivation. Again, link-boy is likely not doing this
As before, you've no evidence this hasn't been done other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one. If your proof that sources are inadequate is solely that they are used to support a dissenting opinion then you have by definition denied dissenting opinion.
You want to get all script-flippy about "sPeAkiG diSsEnT" when the people "dissenting" don't know what the actual fuck they are posting with.
Unfortunately, despite increasingly popular opinion to the contrary, putting an argument into alternating capitals doesn't make it go away.
So. Out of interest. Which alternative to presenting a dissenting opinion and sourcing it, would you prefer?
Not presenting any dissent at all - the only opinions posted should be ones that agree with the mainstream view?
Present a dissenting opinion, but don't provide any evidence for it?
Present a dissenting opinion but then provide evidence supporting the mainstream opinion instead?
Dissenting opinion, by it's very nature, has fewer sources, that's the whole point of it being 'dissenting', as such the character of any set of resources supporting it will be one of having "trawled through" a load of sources presenting the opposing, mainstream view.
By suggesting that any argument whose sources display that character is to be ignored, you're arguing that we should live in a society with no dissent from mainstream opinion.
Is that the sort of society you think Ukraine are fighting for?
I think that not really feeling it viscerally about it is part of the problem, yeah.
But my take, for what it's worh, is that ever since Covid people have just got a good feeling of righteousness by simply repeating the standard mainstream messaging. There was a very strong narrative that the mainstream was right and questioning it amounted to dangerous conspiracy theory (which, to be fair, it often did). So now a certain class of people (slightly left of centre, middle class urbanites) have this Pavlovian response to any questioning of the mainstream narrative, that they simply must repeat it because of that good feeling they got supporting it during Covid.
Unfortunately, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and a couple of coincidental conspiracy-bashings doesn't change the fact that the mainstream media are fundamentally bought and paid for by their corporate advertisers and CEOs of their hedge-fund owners on the board.
The American press's reporting on Gaza has been nothing short of actively complicit. And that's not even a rhetorical flourish, it's the view of no small number of international human rights lawyers.